Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-04-28
THE SUPREME COURT.
Decisions r sndered at tho Austin Sitting
Yesterday.

Willie, c. j. The main question for de-
cision in this case was determined by this
court in the case of Freeman VS.. Gerald,
2 Texas Law Reporter p. 744. The par
ties are the same in both cases. The
question is whether the east boundary
line of the Maxwell grant is
called for by courses and distances
or is it merely the west boun-
Diary line OF the Chambers survey.
Appellants claimed the latter as the
boundary line while appellee cleimed the
line run by courses and distances. While
this court recognizes that courses and
distance ordinarily yield to natural or
artificial objects, yet they do not yield 10
an unmarked prairie line, such as the
west line of The Chambers survey. In
fact, the west line of the Chambers grant
would give the locator more land than
he was entitled to which is certainly not
the intention of the act of October 10,
1866, and as that act has never been
changed it has to be construed by the
courts. The surveyor who ran the lines
of the Maxwell grant said that at that
time the west line Of the Chambers grant
was not marked and there was no way to
recognize it, being in the prairie; and
that he was guided by the maps OF the
General Land Office and tried to keep off
the Chambers survey. The law presumes
that an officer does his duty and that the
Maxwell grant was located to be en-
braced by the survey. There is no proof
to the contrary and the surveyors evil
dence corrobOrateS the report OF. the
survey that the survey was actually
made. In our opinion there
is sufficient evidence that the Maxwell
survey was made, and that its east line
fell Short of the Chambers tract 500
varss. The other points made by appellee
need not be considered, and the judg-
ment is affirmed.
McIlhenny Co. et al. VS.. Leon and
H Blum eft al, from Bell county;
opinion by Gaines, A. j. The Mountain
Home Company Operative Association
made an assignment to Appellee
Wordsworth, and after the prop
erty was administered on, and dividend
was about to be paid, appellants brought
suit to cancel the Blums claim. This
claim was a prOmissOry note, which read
as follows: GOA January l, 1888, we
promise to pay to the order Of Leon & II.
Blum $2409 03 at their office in Calves
ton, Tex, with exchange and interest at
the rate Of s per cent. per annum from
date. August IA, 1882"
TSigne6l w. S. JONES, Agent,
W. T. REESE,
J. +. MCANNICH,
4. J. DALLAS,
Z. B. EDWARDS,
WRIGHT & HARRELL,
J. c.. BELL,
A. c.. STONE.
The evidence shows that the note was
given for debt of the corporation by
Jones, who was agent, and as between
the makers, the corporation was the
principal aud the others sureties. It is
contended that the BIums released Nc
Annich, Dallas and Wright &
Harrell, and thereby released
it's claim against Ithe corporation.
1t is true that the release of the principal
releases the surety, but the release OF the
latter surely does not release the princi-
pal, as by the suretY's release the princi-
pal can be in no worse position. The
above named parties were released for
consideration, and had a right to pur-
chase their discharge. Their release says
in terms, eve agree to release" them
"from any and all liability to US for the
difference between the amount OF dIvl-
dends we receive" on said note, and the
amount which may be due. There is no
doubt that the release of the sureties does
not release the principal, and the court
below did not err in so holding. 1t is
conteuded that the amOur IS paid
by McAnniCh ct al. should be cred
tied on the note but what has
been said disposes of this question. The
released ones did not undertake to pay q
part of the debt but merely bought their
release. There is no error i'll the judg-
ment so far as it awarded TO the BIums
the entire dividend in their favor, and it
is affirmed.
j. and A. j. Dull vs.. F. M. Drake ct
al, from McMullin county; opinion by
| Willie, G. j. This was trespass to try
title brought by appellants. There is no
| statement Of facts, and the only assign
ment of error relates to the ruling out by
the court below OF an administrators
deed to the appellants. It has
Deen repeatedly held that we
will not revise the action
Ct the district judge in admitting or re-
| iecting evidence when there is no state
ment # facts in the record. The APPEL
Iants depend upon bill of exceptions to
bring to our knowledge the facts proved
upon the trial, and we know of no au-
|
had the ruling OF the court been prop
erly before US we would have sanctioned
| it. 1t IS O rather remarkable case, s.
party is appointed temporary admins
traitor, gets an order from the court and
sells real estate under the most hurried
state of proceedings imaginable. He re-
turns no inventory and gives no notice to
parties interested, ard gives no bond
The Judgment is affirmed.
W. NJ. Perry VS.. R. NJ. Scott, from Col
liz county; opinion by Willie, G. J. This
is a motion to affirm on certificate. The
record shows affidavit of poverty in lieu
of an appeal bond. The oath is in COM
plIance with the law in every respect ex-
cept as to description of the Judgment
1t does not give the number OF the
case, the date or nature of the judgment,
nor in whose favor it is rem
E,dsred. These are material errors
las has been held before by this court, and
the certificate must be dismissed.
w oil